ABSTRACT
(I) I would like to say once again that the points I have identified and proposed for discussion, with a view to examining the problematic of the method in psychoanalysis, derive their eventual import from the historico-cultural moorings of the subjective implication they reveal. It is only from this historico-subjective dimension that a truly interanalytic confrontation can emerge. The babelism of our exchanges can certainly be discouraging; it becomes interesting if one considers it as a phenomenon illustrating the clinical material of interanalytic exchanges, material which has its own consistency, its symptoms, and whose processes reflect, in particular, the contradictions present in the explicit or implicit conceptions that we form of the method which should govern our exchanges. For example, one of my discussants expressed the conviction that our differences should be dealt with and resolved by a rational method, according to objective criteria. One cannot deny that this conviction was part of the scientific inspiration of the Freudian perspective. I pointed out to him, however, that the method he recommended was completely foreign to the one that inspires us during the sessions. Should we acknowledge that there is a radical hiatus between the intra-analytic 50and inter-analytic exchanges? If not, should we not ask ourselves questions about the methodological principles which guarantee the analytic specificity of our exchanges?
